Is voting for a democrat the only way to fight republicans?
In an election, for the purposes of determining who will govern - YES.
Look, would it make you feel better if I said I’d be conflicted if I lived in a swing state? That I’m open to the idea that I might think differently if my choice not to vote actually mattered to the result of the election, rather than merely a signal to the democrats to do better?
Well, my feelings being irrelevant, for a national office you should be open to supporting them because not everyone lives in your solid blue leftier-than-thou state. Or at least preface your denunciation of our only option accordingly.
If you can’t, you can’t. But on election day in November 2024 a bunch of people - for whatever reason - chose this most incompetent, corrupt, and demented timeline. And for those who did so because they hold high morals or standards - that’s ironic at least, if not unconscionable.
I’m not denouncing your decision, you’re denouncing mine! I think it’s fine for you to vote for a party that supports genocide if you think that it’s the lesser of two evils. You go for it.
I don’t understand what you mean that I should support the democrats from my very-liberal state because…other people don’t live in liberal states? I don’t follow, but if there’s some connection there, I’m happy to hear about it.
The democrats chose this in 2024 (well, I’d say they’ve BEEN choosing it since Bill Clinton). They poll on this stuff, they know what policies will get them elected and what policies will lose them donors. They’re the moral actors here; they’re the ones that make the decisions that matter. We just get to say our opinion once every few years. I wish people like you would stop trying to put it on individual voters. Blame the people with power. They know how to win, but they choose to lose, because, for them, losing (or at least risking losing) is better than doing what they’d need to do to win.
And I wish you’d stop saying this about having high morals or standards! My standards are not very high. Don’t arm a genocide. Pretty easy. Low bar. Low standards.
I’m not denouncing your decision, you’re denouncing mine!
Okay, mutually assured denouncement.
I don’t understand what you mean that I should support the democrats from my very-liberal state because…other people don’t live in liberal states? I don’t follow, but if there’s some connection there, I’m happy to hear about it.
Leaving aside the issue of downballot races, I think the position of denouncing a national candidate while at the same time expecting that candidate to win (because, blue state), and being okay with that; is a nuanced one. And unless you were going to lead with that, I’d expect it would simply come off as “no one should vote for them period” which is obviously a problem if they’re running against trump more so than your average non-demented, less-openly-corrupt, non-rapist candidate.
I wish people like you would stop trying to put it on individual voters.
How can it not be on individual voters? Voters elect! The Evilcorps Party can do anything they want to do on the campaign except vote. They can’t be responsible for each individual’s vote because it’s individual. The responsibility necessarily lies with the voters, and when they fuck up so horribly the bottom of society drops out, it is very appropriate to blame them.
I never said anything like no one should vote for them period. I absolutely understand the impulse to vote for the democrats even in a solid blue state. I aint judging. I don’t like being told I’m bad because I won’t vote for someone who will fund a genocide.
And hey for downballot races I’m with you, there are some stellar options out there. There are some really cool people running for state and local offices.
Dear god if this conversation hasn’t been nuanced, I don’t know what is lol. Though I don’t think “I won’t vote for candidates that will arm a genocide” is an especially nuanced position. Frankly it’s wild that it’s even a contentious position.
I’ll tell you how it’s not on individual voters: individual voters don’t get to decide what the party platform is. The party does. It’s on the party. Their platform determines what they’ll (hopefully) do, but also whether people will vote for them.
By this logic, we shouldn’t blame Ford for the Pinto (dating myself). How could it not be on the individual customers? Customers purchase (they’re the ones that give Ford power!). Ford can do anything it wants with regard to the design of the Pinto, but it can’t buy the cars from itself. Ford can’t be responsible for each customer’s purchase, because it’s their choice to buy or not buy a Pinto. The responsibly necessarily lies with the purchasers, so if they fuck up so horribly that they blow up in a defective car, it’s very appropriate to blame them.
…er…anyway, no; car companies shouldn’t make dangerous cars, and political parties shouldn’t support genocide. They can choose to do or not do those things, and that’s their choice, not the choice of the individuals who have to deal with them.
I’ll tell you how it’s not on individual voters: individual voters don’t get to decide what the party platform is. The party does. It’s on the party.
And the party is made up of . . . . . c’mon . . . . the party is made up of . . . ??
Of the voters, right. Yes. Voters have a voice in the party platform. It’s not even all that byzantine to do - you show up at the meetings basically. That’s how new (or old) ideas get in.
Now, party politics, yeah that’s a thing in ANY organization whether it’s the DNC, WalMart, or the boys at the bar. So those of you who are big into the “Democrats should do everything I think immediately because i think it” yeah that . . doesn’t work. Working with others doesn’t come naturally to a lot of the Lemmy left I notice. Compromise and letting people have wins and such like that aren’t really accepted, or possibly understood.
By this logic, we shouldn’t blame Ford for the Pinto (dating myself).
So if Ford had a mechanism to let consumers say what they wanted in a car, yes, the consumers would be able to say they don’t want cars to explode on impact. But Ford doesn’t, do they. Ford car buyers don’t have a direct voice. So the analogy fails. Not to mention the whole exploding thing was seriously covered up for years and years as opposed to being published openly and then voted on, which makes it even worse as an analogy.
You’re very sweet, man. I really hope you keep at it and make the world a better place. If you want to call the ghouls running the democratic party voters (I’m sure they vote too), be my guest, but they’re not “the voters,” they don’t represent the voters, and they don’t listen to the voters. The voters don’t control the platform…they don’t even have a meaningful voice on the platform. No matter how many people show up to the meetings saying “we should not arm genocide,” the platform will not change. You will be asked to leave, and if you don’t leave you’ll be arrested. And if, by the grace of god, you take over a caucus, the DNC can and will simply ignore you.
I’m all for compromise and letting people have wins and doing politics. But not around genocide. We don’t compromise on that. It’s not “because I think it” it’s because of the tens of thousands of dead palestinians rotting in shallow graves with american bullets and shrapnel riddling their bodies.
People have approximately no impact on policy. You may be familiar with the Gillens & Page (2014) paper. It’s obviously a little long in the tooth at this point, but I don’t see any reason to imagine it’s less true now. Customers probably have more impact on the design of a car, because focus groups are actually trying to get info to make you buy the car rather than not buy the car. However politicians don’t care whether you vote or not, it’s just that if you vote they need you to prefer them just a little.
And the particular analogy here is between the Ford Pinto blowing up and the parties arming the genocide of palestinians. So no, we don’t have a mechanism to say whether we want that to be the policy, just like consumers don’t get to decide if the Pinto being dangerous is a design choice or not. I’m not sure how the coverup is relevant to the analogy. The point is that the customers/voters don’t have power to change the car/policy…so stop blaming them.
Anyway, the Ford case doesn’t help you see what I mean? Sure it’s an analogy, there are always all kinds of ways analogies don’t work, but the point is that I’m using it to point at a way it does work.
The voters don’t control the platform…they don’t even have a meaningful voice on the platform. No matter how many people show up to the meetings saying “we should not arm genocide,” the platform will not change. You will be asked to leave, and if you don’t leave you’ll be arrested. And if, by the grace of god, you take over a caucus, the DNC can and will simply ignore you.
Does it take too long? Yes. Is it ruled by 300 people who have jockeyed for years to be one of the leaders, yes. Like all human endeavor it is flawed. But it doesn’t exist without the people who make up the party.
We need to get money out of politics, kill the Slaver’s College, re-democratize voting, kill FPTP and a ton of other things. But those things won’t happen through a third party, or the republicans. They can happen through the Democrats if only we’d all agree for one goddamn day. Which is the point of the meme.
I don’t mind the sources, it’s got a sprinkling of schadenfreude!
Is that forward motion? Looks more like walking in a circle to me, and like the focus is absolutely not on the suffering of other human beings. Like…bandying about how much we reference god or not while we fund the extermination of palestinians.
If they win without changing, why would they change? The Democrats have shown us over and over that if they win, they take it for granted. When they win they think “well I guess I could scooch a little further right.” Look I’m not saying they gotta guillotine the leadership (though that would be welcome and might in reality be required for my much more reasonable line in the sand), i’m just not going to vote for them until they stop arming a genocide.
That’s a thing. And yes, if you don’t recall, the whole god bless the united states is a reaganism that infected all discourse and mutated into brylcreem and flag pins so specifically dropping it from the platform after spectacularly failing to do it as we wanted in 2012 is progress.
In an election, for the purposes of determining who will govern - YES.
Well, my feelings being irrelevant, for a national office you should be open to supporting them because not everyone lives in your solid blue leftier-than-thou state. Or at least preface your denunciation of our only option accordingly.
If you can’t, you can’t. But on election day in November 2024 a bunch of people - for whatever reason - chose this most incompetent, corrupt, and demented timeline. And for those who did so because they hold high morals or standards - that’s ironic at least, if not unconscionable.
I’m not denouncing your decision, you’re denouncing mine! I think it’s fine for you to vote for a party that supports genocide if you think that it’s the lesser of two evils. You go for it.
I don’t understand what you mean that I should support the democrats from my very-liberal state because…other people don’t live in liberal states? I don’t follow, but if there’s some connection there, I’m happy to hear about it.
The democrats chose this in 2024 (well, I’d say they’ve BEEN choosing it since Bill Clinton). They poll on this stuff, they know what policies will get them elected and what policies will lose them donors. They’re the moral actors here; they’re the ones that make the decisions that matter. We just get to say our opinion once every few years. I wish people like you would stop trying to put it on individual voters. Blame the people with power. They know how to win, but they choose to lose, because, for them, losing (or at least risking losing) is better than doing what they’d need to do to win.
And I wish you’d stop saying this about having high morals or standards! My standards are not very high. Don’t arm a genocide. Pretty easy. Low bar. Low standards.
Okay, mutually assured denouncement.
Leaving aside the issue of downballot races, I think the position of denouncing a national candidate while at the same time expecting that candidate to win (because, blue state), and being okay with that; is a nuanced one. And unless you were going to lead with that, I’d expect it would simply come off as “no one should vote for them period” which is obviously a problem if they’re running against trump more so than your average non-demented, less-openly-corrupt, non-rapist candidate.
How can it not be on individual voters? Voters elect! The Evilcorps Party can do anything they want to do on the campaign except vote. They can’t be responsible for each individual’s vote because it’s individual. The responsibility necessarily lies with the voters, and when they fuck up so horribly the bottom of society drops out, it is very appropriate to blame them.
I never said anything like no one should vote for them period. I absolutely understand the impulse to vote for the democrats even in a solid blue state. I aint judging. I don’t like being told I’m bad because I won’t vote for someone who will fund a genocide.
And hey for downballot races I’m with you, there are some stellar options out there. There are some really cool people running for state and local offices.
Dear god if this conversation hasn’t been nuanced, I don’t know what is lol. Though I don’t think “I won’t vote for candidates that will arm a genocide” is an especially nuanced position. Frankly it’s wild that it’s even a contentious position.
I’ll tell you how it’s not on individual voters: individual voters don’t get to decide what the party platform is. The party does. It’s on the party. Their platform determines what they’ll (hopefully) do, but also whether people will vote for them.
By this logic, we shouldn’t blame Ford for the Pinto (dating myself). How could it not be on the individual customers? Customers purchase (they’re the ones that give Ford power!). Ford can do anything it wants with regard to the design of the Pinto, but it can’t buy the cars from itself. Ford can’t be responsible for each customer’s purchase, because it’s their choice to buy or not buy a Pinto. The responsibly necessarily lies with the purchasers, so if they fuck up so horribly that they blow up in a defective car, it’s very appropriate to blame them.
…er…anyway, no; car companies shouldn’t make dangerous cars, and political parties shouldn’t support genocide. They can choose to do or not do those things, and that’s their choice, not the choice of the individuals who have to deal with them.
And the party is made up of . . . . . c’mon . . . . the party is made up of . . . ??
Of the voters, right. Yes. Voters have a voice in the party platform. It’s not even all that byzantine to do - you show up at the meetings basically. That’s how new (or old) ideas get in.
Now, party politics, yeah that’s a thing in ANY organization whether it’s the DNC, WalMart, or the boys at the bar. So those of you who are big into the “Democrats should do everything I think immediately because i think it” yeah that . . doesn’t work. Working with others doesn’t come naturally to a lot of the Lemmy left I notice. Compromise and letting people have wins and such like that aren’t really accepted, or possibly understood.
So if Ford had a mechanism to let consumers say what they wanted in a car, yes, the consumers would be able to say they don’t want cars to explode on impact. But Ford doesn’t, do they. Ford car buyers don’t have a direct voice. So the analogy fails. Not to mention the whole exploding thing was seriously covered up for years and years as opposed to being published openly and then voted on, which makes it even worse as an analogy.
You’re very sweet, man. I really hope you keep at it and make the world a better place. If you want to call the ghouls running the democratic party voters (I’m sure they vote too), be my guest, but they’re not “the voters,” they don’t represent the voters, and they don’t listen to the voters. The voters don’t control the platform…they don’t even have a meaningful voice on the platform. No matter how many people show up to the meetings saying “we should not arm genocide,” the platform will not change. You will be asked to leave, and if you don’t leave you’ll be arrested. And if, by the grace of god, you take over a caucus, the DNC can and will simply ignore you.
I’m all for compromise and letting people have wins and doing politics. But not around genocide. We don’t compromise on that. It’s not “because I think it” it’s because of the tens of thousands of dead palestinians rotting in shallow graves with american bullets and shrapnel riddling their bodies.
People have approximately no impact on policy. You may be familiar with the Gillens & Page (2014) paper. It’s obviously a little long in the tooth at this point, but I don’t see any reason to imagine it’s less true now. Customers probably have more impact on the design of a car, because focus groups are actually trying to get info to make you buy the car rather than not buy the car. However politicians don’t care whether you vote or not, it’s just that if you vote they need you to prefer them just a little.
And the particular analogy here is between the Ford Pinto blowing up and the parties arming the genocide of palestinians. So no, we don’t have a mechanism to say whether we want that to be the policy, just like consumers don’t get to decide if the Pinto being dangerous is a design choice or not. I’m not sure how the coverup is relevant to the analogy. The point is that the customers/voters don’t have power to change the car/policy…so stop blaming them.
Anyway, the Ford case doesn’t help you see what I mean? Sure it’s an analogy, there are always all kinds of ways analogies don’t work, but the point is that I’m using it to point at a way it does work.
Well I disagree, obviously, but it doesn’t mean there weren’t things like this: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/convention-floor-erupts-as-dems-restore-references-to-god-jerusalem-in-platform (apologies fir the source, it was the first one in my enshittified search results)
Which was obvious bullshit. But then look at 12 years later and https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/14/democrats-have-officially-abandoned-god/ (apologies again for the source - ugh) and hey lookit that: forward motion.
Does it take too long? Yes. Is it ruled by 300 people who have jockeyed for years to be one of the leaders, yes. Like all human endeavor it is flawed. But it doesn’t exist without the people who make up the party.
We need to get money out of politics, kill the Slaver’s College, re-democratize voting, kill FPTP and a ton of other things. But those things won’t happen through a third party, or the republicans. They can happen through the Democrats if only we’d all agree for one goddamn day. Which is the point of the meme.
I don’t mind the sources, it’s got a sprinkling of schadenfreude!
Is that forward motion? Looks more like walking in a circle to me, and like the focus is absolutely not on the suffering of other human beings. Like…bandying about how much we reference god or not while we fund the extermination of palestinians.
If they win without changing, why would they change? The Democrats have shown us over and over that if they win, they take it for granted. When they win they think “well I guess I could scooch a little further right.” Look I’m not saying they gotta guillotine the leadership (though that would be welcome and might in reality be required for my much more reasonable line in the sand), i’m just not going to vote for them until they stop arming a genocide.
So you’re a single-issue voter?
That’s a thing. And yes, if you don’t recall, the whole god bless the united states is a reaganism that infected all discourse and mutated into brylcreem and flag pins so specifically dropping it from the platform after spectacularly failing to do it as we wanted in 2012 is progress.